Although it always lived in the shadows of its more popular Ford Taurus sibling, the Mercury Sable was nonetheless a significant and successful model in itself, helping redefine the midsize class with its contemporary design and high configurability. Despite its futuristic styling, the Sable found a broad acceptance among buyers, enjoying sales of above 100,000 units most years for its first decade-and-a-half. Yet like the Taurus, the Sable fell on hard times by the early 2000s. Neglected by the Ford Motor Company in favor of high-profit SUVs, the Sable’s competitiveness and buyer interest diminished, and it quietly faded away in 2005. Or so it seemed.

The Sable’s initial absence proved a brief one, as less than two years after its discontinuation in early 2007, Ford unveiled a new Sable, with sales of this resurrected model beginning later that summer as a 2008 model. The new Sable was not in fact an “all-new” vehicle, as it was a face-lifted and re-engineered version of the three-year old Montego.

With production of the D186 Sable winding down in 2005, Ford chose to replace it with two sedans, one slightly smaller and one slightly larger. Utilizing its global operations, the smaller Mazda-based Milan arrived as a 2006 model, while the larger Volvo-based Montego bowed first as a 2005 model. Derived from the S80’s P2 platform, Ford’s new D3 platform underpinned the Montego, and like the P2, was engineered for front- or all-wheel drive.

For the D3, Ford also applied Volvo’s Total Vehicle Geometry (TVG) manufacturing process, increasing build quality and decreasing production time. The Montego also benefited from Volvo’s numerous safety features including roof and underbody energy-channeling cross-tubes (Volvo’s Side Impact Protection System in everything but name), as well as side-impact and side-curtain airbags. Not surprisingly, the Montego and later Sable earned top safety honors.

The 2005-2007 Montego was met with generally positive reviews, and although it was a much more refined and competitive car than the 2005 Sable it replaced, the Montego was not without its flaws, most notably regarding its powertrain. While the V6s of competitors such as the Chrysler 300 and Toyota Avalon were making 250-280 horsepower, the Montego’s sole engine was the 203 horsepower and 207 pound-foot torque 3.0L Duratec-30V6, the same engine available in the old Sable since 1996.

It wasn’t that the Montego needed to be a hotrod, but with some 3,900 pounds to move around for the all-wheel drive versions, acceleration for everyday driving was inadequate. Especially when mated with the AWD’s continuously-variable transmission, the Duratec pulling all its might was felt and heard. Apart from this and a general lack of any personality, the 2005-2007 Montego was typically regarded as a decent large family sedan; neither class-leading, nor particularly exciting, but all-around a solid entry. Unfortunately, sales weren’t impressive.

Montego sales only reached 27,007 in 2005, the car’s best year. This was just barely more than the aging Sable did in its abbreviated 2005 season, and substantially less than most competitors, as well as less than half the sales of the similarly-priced, yet far less technologically-advanced Grand Marquis which it occupied showroom space with. With the higher-volume Ford Five Hundred also seeing disappointing sales, Ford pushed ahead with a significant refresh for the 2008 model year, claiming to have made over 500 individual changes.

Somewhat unsurprisingly, the refreshed cars were rechristened as “Taurus” and “Sable”. Despite “Montego” and “Five Hundred” having heritage in their respective brands’ history, neither had been in use for decades. Taurus and Sable, meanwhile, had much greater relevance in the modern era and in spite of their somewhat tarnished reputation as lackluster fleet cars, Ford hoped that these namplates’ equity would translate to higher sales. Little did we know then that this Sable would be Mercury’s last “new” car.

Addressing the Montego’s biggest shortcoming, the revamped vehicle now featured the larger 3.5L Cyclone V6, first introduced on the 2007-model year Ford Edge, Lincoln MKX, and Lincoln MKZ. Producing 263 horsepower and 249 pound-feet of torque and mated exclusively to an all-new GM-Ford co-developed 6-speed automatic, the new powertrain was much better-suited to handle the car’s bulk.

An exterior facelift brought the Sable more in line with the Mercury’s other vehicles (sans Grand Marquis), and in your author’s opinion, gave the Sable a considerably more refined and elegant appearance than the Montego. Featuring redesigned front and rear fascias, all sheetmetal from the A-pillars forward was new and not shared with the Ford version.

The Milan-inspired front fascia was bolder, highlighted by a larger satin-aluminum finish waterfall grille and flanked by upswept twin-projector beam HID headlights. The new hood had the slightest hint of a power bulge, and a new lower fascia exuded a greater degree of distinctiveness.

Moving around the sides, the Sable added further satin-aluminum accents to the exterior mirrors, door handles, and window surrounds. The Montego’s bodyside moldings were eschewed in favor of a small “SABLE” badge on the front doors. 17-inch and 18-inch wheel designs were also new, with the Sable Premier’s available 7-spoke chrome wheels particularly attractive.

Around back, the license plate cutout was relocated from the trunk lid to the bumper, replaced with a large Mercury logo and a thick aluminum band across the bottom. Taillights, still full-LED, were now clear lensed for a sophisticated “iced” appearance similar to Saab. As before, the somewhat confusing duo of Luxury and Premier trims were offered, with Luxury being the base model and Premier the more luxurious trim.

For better or worse, the interior was little-changed over the Montego. Much like the exterior, it sported a balanced, no-nonsense design, with well-laid out controls. As with its predecessor, the Mercury was differentiated over its Ford sibling by two-tone color schemes, an analogue clock, real chrome and brushed aluminum accents, and different trim trim options, including available faux carbon fiber, macassar ebony wood, and guitar maple wood.

Leather, which was standard on the Premier and optional on the Luxury, was of a new, somewhat suppler-looking grade and included contrast-stitching. The widely-spaced perforations, however, were somewhat unusual.

Befitting of its market positioning, a comfortable, quiet ride was among the Sable’s most endearing qualities. Capitalizing on the already growing preference for the ride height of crossovers, the Sable featured a high “Command Seating” position, with the front H-point some 4.5 inches higher than most competitors. Rear seat bottoms were also positioned higher than the front, giving passengers better support and visibility. Interior volume was the largest in its class by far at 129 cubic feet, with 108 cubic feet of cabin space and a 21 cubic foot trunk.

The vehicle’s four-wheel independent suspension was also revised for 2008 to enhance ride quality and comfort. Up front, its MacPherson struts gained 10% more travel, while the multi-link rear received re-tuning, along with new dampers and spring rates. Furthermore, extra sound deadening materials were added all around, including expandable foam pellets in the A-pillars to reduce wind noise. All-wheel drive was also still available on both Sable models. The same computer controlled Haldex system used by Volvo, it was capable of transferring 100-percent of torque to either the front or rear axle.

Like its predecessor, the Sable received high safety ratings and was named a top safety pick by the IIHS. Four-wheel disc anti-lock brakes with emergency brake assist and traction control were standard, with electronic stability control optional. Six total airbags were standard, consisting of dual frontal impact with occupant-sensing technology, front side-impact, and side curtain. A panic alarm and engine immobilizer were standard on both trims, with a anti-theft alarm system standard on Premier, optional on Luxury.

The 2008 Sable was one of the first vehicles to feature Ford’s SYNC infotainment technology, which bundled mobile phone, radio, music from external devices, available navigation, as well as a number of apps for functions such as weather into a Microsoft-developed system, operable by touchscreen interface, traditional buttons on the center stack and steering wheel, and voice command. Other notable tech options included an in-dash navigation system tied in with SYNC, a rear DVD-based entertainment system, and object-detecting backup sensors.

The story of the final 2008-2009 Mercury Sable has an unfortunate bittersweet ending. Despite all the many things it had to offer—its space, its safety, its long list of features, and its positive reviews—the throngs of buyers Mercury needed just didn’t come.

Some of this wasn’t Mercury’s fault, as the full-size segment in general was losing market share to crossovers and ever-larger midsize sedans. Additionally, the Great Recession, officially lasting from late 2007 to the second quarter of 2009 (with effects being felt long after) put a huge damper on all new car sales in the United States. Total fifth generation Sable sales in the U.S., at 32,847, were in fact lower than the Montego, which sold 63,068 during its run. Somewhat conversely to these figures, 2008-2009 Sables seem to be all over the place here in eastern Massachusetts, as I see them on a nearly daily basis.

The basic Ford car itself was a competitive full-size family sedan that was much improved over the original 2005 vehicle. Granted they had little freedom to drastically change the car from the donor Ford version, Mercury put forth a respectable effort into making the Sable a stylish car with a distinctive upscale-modern vibe. The problem was, there just wasn’t that wow factor to make the Sable a compelling entry.

Not all full-size family sedans need to be necessarily exciting, but given Mercury’s longstanding struggle to find a clear, purposeful identity, it was more imperative than ever that the Sable have some sort of emotional appeal in order to generate interest among buyers. The Sable did have many positive strengths, but few consumers failed to notice. What most did see was a conservatively-styled sedan based on an already three-year old design (with its greenhouse cribbed from the 1997 Audi A6). Although the “fancy” was more convincing than ever, to many the final Mercury Sable was just a fancy Ford Taurus, much as it had been for its whole life.

The sixth generation Taurus was unveiled at the 2009 North American International Auto Show, but no redesigned Sable was shown. This fifth generation Sable quietly ended production in spring 2009, leaving a suggestive void in Mercury’s lineup for nearly a year, until the impending announcement came in summer 2010 that Mercury’s “New Doors Open” would soon close for good.

45 Comments

Brendan, thanks for this well-done rundown on the last gen Sable’s history, I enjoyed reading it. Mercury was abandoned in Canada earlier than in the U.S., so I don’t think, but am not sure, that this last gen Sable was sold up here. I believe the Grand Marquis was the last Mercury-branded car sold in this country.

Mercury was discontinued after 1999 in Canada, so none of these later models were ever sold here. The Grand Marquis did remain available until the end in 2011, and although it was still badged as a Mercury, the name was never mentioned on Ford’s website. I have seen it referred to as a “Ford Grand Marquis” – perhaps this is how they were registered.

Thanks, Stumack. Hard to believe it has been that long since Ford dropped the Mercury brand in Canada. In the end, there just wasn’t enough differentiation between Mercury and Ford to justify paying more for a Merc.

Ridiculously tall(60.5″) for a regular sedan, underscoring the
trend for each generation of cars getting taller than the last
since the 1970s, but: does it without lifting the belt-line and
resorting to slits for windows. 🙂

I was never in the market for this kind of car myself, but I agree it was nice to see some designers realize that drivers do need to see out of their vehicles. How police officers deal with the tiny windows of their new Taurus cruisers baffles me.

The Montego SHOULD have sold better, at least better than the 500 with it’s CVT….but folks, or was it fleets, preferred the Ford. All the car mags were down on the 500 and Montego for lackluster acceleration, yet the power to weight ratio of these cars closely matched the numbers for a Taurus/Sable equipped with the pushrod Vulcan. (Not terrible, but trailing the pack for speed.)
Too bad the smaller Milan got the more powerful engine.

These were supposed to replace the Crown Victoria/Grand Marquis, so being tall wasn’t really a drawback….was it?
Sat in one at CarMax, after looking at a Milan, and even though I’m 6 foot 4 and 235 lbs I had LOADS of room in the front seat.

I can understand using new names for new cars, but going back to “old” names was kind of foolish when the biggest thing that differed between the old and new was tail light lens

Over time, though, the differences between
versions of the same car sold under different
divisions became less, ultimately consisting
just of a different model name. I.E. Mariner
vs Escape, or in the old days Caprice vs
Delta 88 vs LeSabre. They all did basically
the same thing, with just enough difference
prescribed by the marketing department to
convince the public they were *differerent*
cars!

I always am disappointed when another domestic car is shunted off on to some import platform. The automaker always hopes that bringing the car up to world class standards will somehow make import buyers come rushing in.

It rarely works that way and of course the old domestic Sable far outsold the new. The platform had more horsepower, but of course only at rpms the mature clientel will never experience. The new platform, even if an old Volvo one, required much investment to get in domestic production, so the mature Sable audience is expected to pay more for a car they like less.

I wish Ford would have had enough confidence in itself to have just updated the old Sable enough to give the client more of what it wanted. A longer lasting transmission and a more up to date body that meets or exceeds current safety standards. The Vulcan engine could have easily been given the same type of updates the GM V6s got. And the value price of the old Sable could have been maintained.

I don’t think Ford was expecting import buyers to come rushing in to buy Montegos and Sables. Ford was just putting the resources of its global empire to good use in using the Volvo P2 as the basis for its new full-size car/CUV platform. The P2 was better than anything Ford had lying around that it had developed on its own, and the cost of developing an all-new platform would have been far more astronomical.

Utilizing the Volvo platform and studying their manufacturing processes also benefited the D3 cars in their high level of safety and build quality. The fact that the platform was engineered for all-wheel drive from the start was also a major plus. Add in the eventual Ford-developed Cyclone V6 and the Ford-GM 6-speed transmission, and the Sable and company were very competitive cars, using the some of the best technology from different companies around the world.

It’s a mere principle of economics that companies should specialize where they have a comparative advantage, and that’s just what Ford smartly did with the D3. The 2008-2009 Sable was a very good vehicle and despite its higher price tag, was a much better value than its D186 Sable predecessor in terms of all it rewarded its buyers with. Its failure can be largely blamed on its forgettable styling, poor marketing and brand perception, and the general meaninglessness of the Mercury brand by that point.

The old D186 platform had been around for 2 decades with minimal upgrades. Extensively overhauling it would have also been costly, and only would have bought them time before sales slid to minuscule levels. Old cars can only be built for so long, before their lack of refinement, safety, fuel economy, features, and horrendous residual value far outweigh any cost savings.

“Old cars can only be built for so long, before their lack of refinement, safety, fuel economy, features, and horrendous residual value far outweigh any cost savings.” Well put, but funny… did you know that the current Camry rides on a platform originally released in the fall of 2000? And for some unknown reason people still eat those things up. Go figure.

Ah, but the Camry (which I never stated was a good car, btw) has received the body, safety, powertrain, technology, and interior updates that are on par with the mid-size class. With that said, Toyota’s path of staying the course, and not going out of its way to vastly improve the Camry is the reason why it is not a class-leading, and average at best midsize sedan.

As for the point that a lot of people buy it, doesn’t mean it’s good. Sure it makes money for Toyota, as did the D186 Taurus/Sable for Ford, but aren’t we entitled to the best cars automakers can offer? If every automaker followed this pattern, we’d still all be driving Model Ts.

John has brought this argument up before regarding the GM A-bodies, and to my understanding, his point is that the car continue on in the same basic form as before, with no major mechanical, cosmetic, or technology updates. I’m sorry if I am misunderstanding him, but that was what my response was to.

John C.

Posted April 11, 2016 at 7:11 PM

Not so much no changes but keeping the same platform, a good example being the Camry, or more so the w body Lumina-Impala. Changes were done and upgrades made 110 hp iron duke- 300hp 3.6, and 4 bodies but the changes were done over time and in a way not to require borrowing large sums to take a chance with dubious chances of success. The early w body was quite heavy for what it was but at least it managed to not put on the bloat of the more frequently redesigned. Show a car company with frequent clean sheets of paper and I will show you a company with a big debt load to service as well.

The A body and the L body(Corsica), in my opinion, could have stayed around longer both for the reason that I prefer 80s designs to nineties designs but also in seeing what replaced them with bloat replacing crispness and the replacements were far heavier with little advancement in function.

I somewhat have different views on why the Sable failed. I liked the marketing with that girl telling you to put Mercury on your list. In 2005 you could buy a D186 Sable at $21525 and a Volvo based Montego at $24995, a 16% price increase and the Sable also had bigger rebates. The Montego had all the ads of course, but then when a Sable buyer drove it, it wasn’t designed for him but rather was a different type of car modified to be acceptable to him. This was a big mountain to climb and could have been avoided. Another restyle of the old Sable might have failed as well but at least it would have been a less costly mistake and a success would have been all the more profitable.

Chris M.

Posted April 11, 2016 at 11:33 PM

That has to be the first time I’ve heard “crisp” used as a description of the Corsica!

True on the Camry’s platform, but the thing is, in the categories you mention, the Camry has kept pace with the times. It’s still among the smoothest and quietest of its four-cylinder peers. Fuel economy is still up there. It’s gotten enough structural development to retain top ratings in objective IIHS and NHTSA crash testing. It refuses to break down. And due to all of that, resale value remains high.

The old D186 platform didn’t get the same amount of love from its engineers. It was kept cheap and well-equipped, but in all the other metrics it was allowed to fall well behind its competitors. I’m hardly a subscriber to the Toyota ‘religion’ (I’ve never driven one I’d own, besides the last 2ZZ Celica GT-S), but they do know how to keep mainstream buyers on-side.

Honestly the D3 to me is nothing more than the lingering stink of Nasser era Ford. It never underpinned anything that could be considered anything but a failure as far as sales go, not until a decade after it’s tepid introduction, where, ironically, given the ridiculous height of the original FiveHundered/Montego, it became the basis of the current Explorer.

Also the notion that Ford needed Volvo to come up with a competent platform in this catagory is ludicrous. I agree with that notion when it comes to compact segments dominant in Europe, but as a full size car, I think Ford could have come up with something equal or better, and probably without the unfavorable quirks the D3 very clearly has

The old domestic Taurus/Sable may have outsold the new, but would it have continued to do so in the mid-to-late 2000s? I doubt it. By the time they were cancelled, the D186s were basically wards of the state given their fleet sales. I personally think the 500/Taurus/Montego/Sable benefited massively from the Volvo tie-up.

I was there for one of the first consumer drive days back in 2005 at Irwindale Speedway, and remember being blown away by the solidity of the 500’s structure, the solid ‘whoompf’ of the doors, and its throne-like seating. It really felt like a sea change for Ford.

Although PAG is now a thing of the past, that rationalization of international platforms (see today’s Fusion, Focus, Fiesta, Escape etc) has now paid off handsomely for Ford, and probably stands as one of their shrewder business moves in the last half-century. The ongoing success of FCA’s Daimler-Benz-based Charger, 300, and Challenger is a good analogy. I think the Ford 500 and its kin were just a victim of immaturity as Ford worked out how to fully realize the benefits.

I always saw it as some sort of Volvo XC90 Sedan, though even though it’s built on the P2 platform in common with the V70/S80, it’s size and visual heft made me reckon it had more in common with the XC90 than the smaller brethren in the stable. How much was really in common with the XC90?

Harsh, but I think the history makes a compelling case. Beginning with the 1958 Ford Thunderbird…

Much has been written on these pages about FoMoCo’s treatment of the Mercury division; overall, when you look at Ford’s place in the US marketplace versus archrival Chevrolet, I begrudgingly must admit (eternal GM fanboi that I am) that Ford positioned itself better. Only over the past four years or so has the General allowed Chevy to play to a more upscale buyer who’d consider a Ford, Buick or GMC, but never a Chevy.

And what does any of this have to do with Mercury?

Ford’s success with more premium offerings made Mercury little more than an alternately-styled Ford with a higher price tag.

Or, if we seek an economy of words…redundant.

In a world with fewer nameplates, where Detroit still stood strong, Ford could have taken Lincoln further upscale (as it did on a few glorious occasions) and kept it there, allowing Mercury the space to play where the Lincoln brand does now.

But we all know how things went in the 70s and 80s. How Japan had to eat Detroit’s lunch before the Big Three – Ford first, GM last – learned their lesson.

So here we have a fine car that could’ve used more power, but is pretty much the same car you could get for less across town…or in many cases, across the showroom, as a Ford. And with all the other choices out there, Mercury lost its reason to exist, no matter how many times Jill and her sexy sophistication insisted we had to put it on our list.

I’ve sampled the 2008 Taurus and found it to be an excellent car all the way around. Solid acceleration, great interior room, and cavernous trunk. Too bad anything that is in a sedan shape is essentially invisible to Americans. The post 2009 Taurus has an infinitely more interesting shape but style has cost the car some practicality.

Even worse then, perhaps, that the crossover Freestyle / Taurus X weren’t to the buying public’s liking. Those cars (we can really call them wagons, because that’s what they were) had more interior space and comfort than many competitors, and drove every bit as nicely and comfortably as their sedan counterparts. That can’t be said for more comprehensive makeovers like the Camry-based Highlander. And yet, perhaps because they sat just an inch or two too low, they never took off with consumers. One of the real overlooked gems of our time if you ask me, in terms of overall usability.

I agree! While I don’t think the thirsty 3.5 was the answer (my wife’s Edge never got better than18 mpg), maybe dropping the CVT was a solution. I prefer the Montego’s overall style thought. Kill the silver back lights with fire.

Good job on an underappreciated car, Brendan.

A pic of the Meta One, Mercury’s stillborn answer to the the Freestyle:

The problem with this Sable was two-fold – not only was this car competing with the Taurus, it was also likely cross shopped against the Milan and the Grand Marquis, which was still for sale until about 2009.

Customers who bought the fourth generation Sable probably preferred the size of the Milan and saw the new Sable as too big. There is also the cost factor as well.

Full size shoppers stepping into a Mercury dealer likely wanted a Grand Marquis. The new, much different looking Sable could have made their choice easier.

And of course, the simple fact of their Ford counterparts being nearby didn’t help at all.

I agree that a lot of buyers looking for a full-sizer probably preferred the ‘old-world’ Grand Marquis over the Sable, in part because the Grand Marquis was rear drive. If the car had come to market as a Sable and not a Montego, it might have had more success because the Montego name had a far shorter history than Sable. So why the switch-up? Oh, because Ford ground the Taurus name into the dirt and took Sable with it. Then there was the matter of the styling. While it looked good on the Freestyle/Taurus X that mcc.pj (above) mentioned, the sedans were ungainly – tall, narrow, un-sleek. In the end, there was simply too much against the Sable for it to survive and most of it had nothing to do with how good a car it was.

My folks have a 2009 Taurus they bought brand new and I had a 2008 Taurus I had for a short time before it was rear ended.

My take on the 08-09 Taurus and sable are that they were great cars if the person buying it wanted roomy and reliable transportation. My folks have had theirs for 7 years and 85,000 miles and it has had no issues. The seating in it was very comfy and the back seats went down flat even if the front seats were moved all the way back to the farthest seating position. Plus the passenger front seatback could be put down giving a person more room to store stuff.

Visibility is great. It has an excellent green house.

The engine in the car was plenty powerful to motivate the car from a stoplight or on the highway. It is no race car but it will do over 80 mph without and engine complaints.

I have always thought the front end of the 2008-2009 Taurus had a slight resemblance to the front end of the 86-91 Sable due to the fenders.

To me it is a good looking car. However according to my friends in the car sales industry, they don’t sell well as used cars because nobody wants them.

A neighbor bought one of these and it is a very nice car. I always thought that its biggest handicap was that it looked about 15 years old when it came out. Sort of an update on the 1992-97 Crown Victoria with its six window roof.

The interior form is everything you could ask for, but it needs to be wrapped in a CUV shape. This platform would’ve been better served if Ford had skipped the sedans and put all their effort into building a better Freestyle/Taurus X. They could’ve had a big head start on GM’s successful Lambdas.

You’re definitely right about the proportions – the styling for the Taurus and Sable, at least in this generation, definitely turned off customers.

Ford did put their effort into building a better Taurus X – the Flex and Explorer are revised versions of the same platform. Considering the sales success of the Explorer, I’d say Ford is pretty happy with the results.

The exterior dimensions of this car are nearly identical to the 1955 Chevrolet. The Ford is six inches longer.

Perhaps a more squared-off look instead of trying to adapt the Audi/Passat style to it might have worked better.

I have owned a 2009 Taurus for the last five years and put 80,000 miles on it. It’s the least imperfect car I’ve ever owned and basically exactly what I want from a car. I seriously don’t know what I’m going to replace it with when it’s gone.

Interesting comment. When I wrote up this car on its debut, I fixated on its remarkable, all-consuming conservatism. One wonders if this was a reaction to the backlash caused by the fish-face ’96 Taurus.

I know that Mercury used the Montego name back in the 1970s on their version of the Torino. I know the Grand Marquis was the most popular Mercury in it’s last 10 years of it’s existence (2000-2010). It was the last of the old-school body on frame RWD sedans And it was mostly bought by the AARP crowd.

My 2005 Ford Five Hundred just got crushed by a speeding old guy in a new Lincoln (same basic platform). In my example, on top of the comfort, outward visibility, interior room, trunk space, and reliability, the safety angle came through. I was t-boned at high speed just ahead of the driver’s side rear wheel, and the car was totaled. To look at it, the car appears hardly damaged. Underneath it all, the tub and rear suspension parts all deformed in a controlled fashion, absorbing the hit and disappating the energy, just what they are supposed to do. The best car I ever had is gone, unless you want to drive in left hand circles. If I buy another car, rather than keep using my pickup truck, it will be a Five Hundred, Montego, Sable, or Taurus, 2005 to 2009. No question. Don’t care which one. It checks all the boxes, except looks and styling. I’m getting older, looks ain’t everything.

Funny you also notice more Sables on the road than Montegos, despite lower production. I was thinking the same thing reading this article and reflecting on this platform- and I live in Michigan, where all variants of these cars sold well.

I have read that the CVTs were troublesome and VERY expensive to replace, so perhaps a fair number of Montegos/500s met an early death? The resale value is also crap – not quite as dismal as the old Vulcan Taurus, but pretty bad. The cars are just so bland and have zero brand equity. Even the W-body Impala, which is a much worse car in every objective measure, is more popular and desirable. It has excellent name recognition and more traditional proportions, which matters more to a lot of buyers than rear legroom or suspension refinement. This platform is a prime example of why a good car does not automatically equal a popular car.

I’ve always liked the interiors of these cars, starting with a co-worker’s Five Hundred that I experienced in ’09 or so. The photos of the Sable interior are even nicer, and the materials appear to be the same quality. I have to assume the wood accents are not real, but they’re well-executed fakery. This is an interior I could definitely live with.

The outside styling? Not so great. The roofline just doesn’t work right, despite my liking its two primary inspirations (C5 Audi A6, 92-97 Crown Vic six-window) The front sheetmetal and taillights/trunk lid did benefit greatly from the refresh though. A compelling car in revised form–just too little, too late to turn buyers’ heads.

Whenever I go car-shopping to replace the Crown Vic, the Taurus X will probably be one of the vehicles considered (I’d want the 3.5 and no CVT). It’s a shame they didn’t make a Sable X with the nicer interior and more attractive details…but one can only imagine how low the sales volume on that would have been. Maybe if, as has been said, they abandoned the trunked sedan and made the CUV-like “X” the *only* Sable version. That could have been interesting.

I currently own one of these, an 06 Montego. Literally the nicest car I’ve ever had, very roomy and comfortable to be in, I do agree that a more powerful drivetrain and exciting styling would’ve helped sales, but it’s a very nice car, quiet on the road and I get compliments from all sorts of people about it. I paid cash for it yet friends and family have asked me questions about financing. I once owned a 2000 Taurus as well, didn’t like it as much but it was ok for the time I had it.